On Oct 30, 2007, at 10:20 AM, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>
>> Proponents of punning would label this:
>> "OWL DL, now with more, but not all, of OWL Full goodness"
>
> To some extent this is about labelling ....
Mostly, I think.
> I have been surprised how strongly some of my colleagues feel about
> this issue - my original take, and still my personal prejudice (but
> not the position I represent) is that punning is simply an area in
> which the DL implementations are incomplete.
I would be interested in hearing their views. Any way we can arrange
that?
> I suspect, but have not checked, that many of the WG would be
> unhappy with such a position though - and since it would take me
> some effort to convince HP of it - I haven't given either task much
> thought.
I don't know about the WG. You would know about HP. But I think it
would be good to surface all the thinking about this matter so we
could take it in to consideration. I found Evan's note about chaining
data values quite helpful, for instance, and perhaps this leads to an
easily implementable improvement.
> i.e.
> - semantically using the same name for say, a class and an
> individual, has the consequences that one might expect from OWL Full
> - the OWL DL profile is incomplete, in that, consequences resulting
> from punning are not computed (but still legal OWL consequences).
> i.e. an OWL DL reasoner may implement punning in the way that OWL
> 1.1 reasoners currently are doing so, but the resulting (lack of)
> entailments is incomplete.
I presume that this is a restatement of the proposed situation. If
so, I think it is accurate.
-Alan